Re: git copies of cvs modules available

[Curt Sampson <cjs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 2009-11-06 13:36 -0500 (Fri), Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> I'm not sure how a ,v file which works properly with CVS can be called
> "corrupted".

Using the terms "works properly" and "CVS" in the same sentence is an
interesting idea in and of itself.

On 2009-11-06 12:04 -0500 (Fri), Arnaud Lacombe wrote:

> I will not comment further on SVN as I think is even worse than CVS.

I'm curious as to why you think so. While I'm far more intimately
familiar with many SVN problems than I care to be, I'm unfortunate
enough to be even more familiar with CVS, and I find it difficult to
think of any area where CVS is superior.

On 2009-11-06 18:47 +0100 (Fri), Michal Suchanek wrote:

> Perhaps NetBSD should stick to CVS because no conversion tool can
> handle its corrupt repository ;-)

I think we'll probably stick with CVS just through sheer
bloody-mindedness.

That, and the memories of the 4.4BSD-related CVS to CVS conversion are
still painful.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs%starling-software.com@localhost>        +81 90 7737 2974
           Functional programming in all senses of the word:
                   http://www.starling-software.com